Podcasts about r01

Dr. Gabrielle Rocque, chair of the 2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, breast oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and symposium chair-elect, Dr. Stephanie Wheeler, professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discuss key interventions in quality care and compelling patient perspectives presented at #ASCOQLTY21. Transcript ASCO Daily News: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. On today's episode, we'll discuss promising interventions to improve the quality of care for patients and survivors and other key takeaways from the 2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I'm delighted to welcome the chair and chair-elect of the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium, Dr. Gabrielle Rocque and Dr. Stephanie Wheeler, for this discussion. Dr. Rocque is a breast oncologist and health services researcher. She is also associate professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology and Oncology and Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Wheeler is a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She also serves as associate director of community outreach and engagement at the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. My guests' full disclosures are available in our show notes, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Rocque and Dr. Wheeler, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Thank you for having us. ASCO Daily News: Dr. Wheeler, it was wonderful to have a hybrid event this year, with people participating in person in Boston and virtually. This is surely a sign of things to come. Can you tell us about some of the most important interventions in quality improvement that were presented at the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Absolutely, and thank you so much for hosting us. It was a really terrific [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium. And the fact that we had hybrid engagement from investigators all over the country and internationally was really exciting. There's a couple of intervention classes, if you want to call it that, that I think were particularly inspiring and interesting to me. The first were sets of interventions that focused on strategies to improve goals of care conversations and advanced care planning directives for patients with cancer or people with terminal illness in particular. And I just wanted to highlight a couple of those that I thought were particularly innovative. One was Abstract 8, which focused on using computer modeling and care coaches to increase advanced care planning conversations for people with advanced cancer. And this was presented by Dr. Divya Gupta. And it was just a wonderful example of how we can utilize technology and also care coaches. And in many cases, these don't necessarily have to be clinicians. They sometimes can be community health workers and others who can help direct those conversations and make it more comfortable for people living with advanced disease, and also their families, to consider next steps. In a similar vein, there were two other presentations--Abstract 1 delivered by Dr. Manali Patel and Abstract 2 delivered by Dr. Divya Parikh--that also utilized a similar model in a different care setting. And in those cases, the care settings ranged from VA to integrated health care settings. And we even had a conversation about how to do this work in community rural oncology practices. And I think that this kind of intervention has the potential for translation across a variety of settings. And the next steps are going to be figuring out exactly how to implement it in these settings. So, that's one class that I thought was particularly interesting. And I just want to highlight another group of interventions and studies that I found really innovative. And those were the presentations about hospital at-home models and how we can better deliver oncology care in the comfort of individuals' homes. And I thought Dr. Cardinale Smith did a great job from Mount Sinai describing the landscape of those interventions and the future for this kind of care delivery (“Overview of Programs and Ethics”). ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Great to hear about those promising new approaches. Dr. Rocque, the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium captured many trends in quality care, including patient-reported outcomes measurement as an important way to monitor quality of care and patients' experiences. Can you highlight the studies that will help inform our listeners about how to integrate patient-reported outcomes into real-world settings? Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Yeah. This was a major topic of the conference this year to think about how patient-reported outcomes are informative both in traditional research settings and in real-world settings. So, I was really intrigued by the Abstract 154 by Joy Jarnagin. And that abstract talked about how the changes in patient-reported outcomes actually had a very strong association with patients' treatment response, and in fact, was even more informative than those patients' tumor markers and I think show a novel way that patient-reported outcomes can be used. We also saw some more traditional abstracts on patient-reported outcomes. I'd like to highlight Abstract 152 by Valerie Lawhon, which really used patient-reported outcomes to identify patients' experience and their mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think provided us some really important insight into the experiences of our patients. And then as you mentioned, there is a lot of focus on real-world settings and how to transition from typical research patient-reported outcomes to a more broad scale implementation. And the session implementing PROs in oncology practice was really outstanding in terms of considering how this can be done. So, Dr. Terry Mulvey from Massachusetts General Hospital presented their experience on how to get these patient-reported outcomes into routine care, and what are some of the challenges associated with that, and how did they have to adapt to make sure that this was doable in real-world settings (“Challenges to Getting Started in a Practice Setting”). I was also impressed with the study by Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon on the potential populations where there can be barriers of care and their study looking at an intervention in which they're implementing patient-reported outcomes over a wide variety of different practice types across the country (“Potential Populations Where This Can Be a Barrier to Care”). And I think these early insights also pointed us to future questions. Dr. Wynne Norton did a wonderful job of outlining some of the future questions that are likely to come up as we move into an era where patient-reported outcomes are a part of standard of care, and really think about how do we refine these for maximal benefit (“Overview of Current Strategies”). So, I think all of these sessions were highlighting the promise of patient-reported outcomes, as well as the future questions in this space. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. As a specialist in gerontology, geriatrics, and palliative care, please tell us about new approaches that oncologists should be aware of as they strive to provide high quality care for older patients and those receiving palliative care. Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Absolutely. So, we've talked a bit about the patient-reported outcomes. And I think we'd be remiss in not highlighting the presentation on geriatric assessment--the presentations on the geriatric assessments into clinical practice by Dr. [Rawad] Elias (“Incorporating Geriatric Assessments Into Practice”). And I think this highlights another opportunity for us to move the field forward and take better care of our older adults. In terms of palliative care, there were multiple very informative abstracts. Dr. Wheeler has highlighted a few in the space of care guides or lay health coaches providing support in advanced care planning. In addition, we saw an interesting discussion of caregiver interventions for patients that are receiving--with cancer treatment by Dr. Nick Dionne-Odom (“Caregiver Interventions”). And I think it's important that we remember both the patients and the caregivers who are affected by cancer and by the amount of work that has to be done to support a patient with cancer going through their journey. ASCO Daily News: Absolutely, so important to remember caregivers and their needs and resources that could be available to them as well. Dr. Wheeler, financial toxicity is an enormous concern for many patients and their families, and the oncology care community has been trying for some time to figure out how best to address the concerns of patients and the health care system. Are there any new interventions that we should be aware of? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yes, and I think that the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium was an opportunity to hear about several of those. And some of them didn't make it onto the main stage but were featured in abstract sessions and poster sessions. So, as we're all well aware, financial toxicity is a multidimensional set of constructs that includes patients and their family's material out-of-pocket burden, as well as the psychological distress and potentially harmful care altering behaviors that financial hardship induces. And so, we continue to hear at the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium multiple talks about the strain that patients are undergoing, including the non-medical hardship that's introduced by a cancer diagnosis. And that was really interesting, and I think important to document. But I think that where the field is moving is more towards interventions, both behavioral interventions and systems interventions, multilevel approaches to dealing with the hardship itself as well as the importance of policy. So, there were several abstracts that talked about the introduction of biosimilars and generics and how that affected price of many of the oncologic drugs available on the market. And frankly, the message is a bit discouraging. Prices continue to rise. And in some cases, the price increases are not limited to pharmacologic products. In some cases, we saw abstracts presenting the increased cost of surgery, of outpatient care appointments, and things like that as well. So, we're not going to fix the problem by managing drug pricing alone. In terms of patient and family-directed interventions, I thought that there were some interesting abstracts. I want to highlight a number 53--or excuse me, Abstract 43 by Melissa Beauchemin that focused on the existence of hospital specialty pharmacies and partnering with freestanding care coordination organizations to improve access to oncology medications, as well as Abstract 96 presented by Ms. Rachel Marquez which was focused on resolving transportation disparities and access to cancer treatments. These kinds of interventions are obviously patient directed but have tremendous potential. And then I also want to just note a couple of additional studies that are ongoing that are important to recognize in this field. There are at least five National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded R01 trials underway right now investigating the role of financial navigation and various iterations of it in different care settings. So, I think we will want to look to this meeting as an opportunity to hear about that work as it moves forward. And how that work is implemented is going to be vital, because the types of care settings where it's being done--ranging from AYA populations in Utah, to urban populations in Washington state, to integrated care organizations in Northern California, all the way to parts of rural North Carolina--we're going to see a diversity of outcomes and different ways in which those types of interventions can manifest in those different studies. I also want to note that the NCI has funded a series of supplements through its Cancer Center Core Grant Initiative that are all focused on identification, timely identification of financial toxicity in practice. And many of the investigators leading that work were attending the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium, and so that will be important to keep an eye on as we move forward as well. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Dr. Rocque, let's focus on health equity and access. I'd like to ask you about the session on eliminating barriers to clinical trial access. The presenters of this session shared strategies to directly address inclusion and diversity in cancer care. Can you tell us about approaches that caught your attention? Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Absolutely. So, this was a really great session talking about clinical trial access and barriers, and particularly as it relates to health equity. And so, in Abstract 74, Dr. Joe Unger presented a really interesting conceptual model that highlighted that the barriers to clinical trial access are not necessarily always at the patient level, but they are at the system level, the provider level. And this framework for considering how do we target in the future our ability to engage patients in clinical trials was really important, and I think was complemented well by the patient perspective from Rick Bangs, who's worked closely with SWOG, in thinking about how do patients view clinical trials and how can we better engage them. And I think folding together these different experiences and models to develop future interventions. I also thought the Abstract 75 looking at survival in the real-world analysis was noteworthy. And in particular, the ability to consider patients who are typically excluded from clinical trials based on their laboratory criteria and potentially having something like chronic kidney disease, and how little data there is on those patients who actually, in this study, had different outcomes after chemotherapy for breast cancer. I think when you think about clinical trial access and inclusion, I also think you need to think about how we collect our data and how we consider race and other social determinants of health. So, there were a few other abstracts that, although not in this session, I think were incredibly important for us to consider. The first is Abstract 78 by Ms. Niveditta Ramkumar that talked about the association between rurality and race and surgical treatment and outcomes for non-metastatic colon cancer. And so, she talked a bit about the intersectionality between race and rurality, and I think brings up an important topic that we need to think about these constructs, not only as individual constructs but how they impact each other as we consider analysis in the future. And also Abstract 80 by Dr. Kekoa Taparra, which was a really interesting abstract that talked about the disaggregation of Pacific Islanders in major Asian subpopulations to reveal hidden cancer disparities. So, in this abstract, he discussed how we often lump together different populations, potentially because of small numbers, who really may have very different experiences and characteristics. And I think challenges us to move the field forward by identifying populations in groups that are, in fact, very similar to each other and not just pulling this together. And I think that will have an impact on how we view engaging patients in clinical trials, as well as reporting those clinical trial results that allows our providers to understand how the trial results fit for the patient that is sitting in their clinic for whom they're making their decisions. ASCO Daily News: Indeed. Dr. Wheeler, is there anything that you'd like to add on the issue of access to clinical trials? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: So, there was an abstract that particularly sparked my attention, [Abstract] 79 presented by Dr. Jenny Xiang about the VA Connecticut Cancer Experience, where universal pre-screening and using computer algorithms to identify patients who might be eligible for clinical trials was used. And I think that this is an important approach that can help us rely less on the assumptions and the biases that exist in clinical care practice about whether a patient may or may not participate in a clinical trial, and instead use the vast amounts of information that we know about them in their electronic health record to try to preemptively identify them and approach them. We know that when patients are asked and invited to be part of trials, they are much more likely to say yes than people assume. And this could be a more unbiased way of assessing that eligibility, and then proactively identifying people, ideally, with a trial navigator. I think that would enable us to potentially overcome some of the barriers that exist and that are, frankly, institutionally biased in many cases. ASCO Daily News: Thank you, Dr. Wheeler. Dr. Rocque, the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium featured an excellent keynote address by Dr. Ben Corn of Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Integrating Hope – Real Hope! – Into Clinical Oncology”) and a wonderful lecture by Dr. John Cox, who was honored with the Joseph V. Simone award for advancing quality cancer care (“Reshaping Practice: Necessary Trouble”). Can you share some highlights from their talks? Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Definitely. So, the keynote address by Dr. Ben Corn was perfectly timed for this meeting. I think everyone has had a difficult past 2 years with the pandemic. And his message of the importance of hope really struck a chord with me and many of the attendees, and how this is something that we can strategically work to improve, and that hope is something we can modify and train for. And so, I'm really excited to both hear this lecture and then also see what's to come in the future in this domain of hope-related research. Another session that I would like to highlight as well is Dr. Cox's talk after receiving the Joe Simone Achievement Award. And his lecture highlighted that change is coming. And he emphasized the importance of changing payment structures to be able to improve the quality of care that patients receive and to be able to leverage those changes for infrastructure that allows us to enable our health system to have a more patient-centered approach with many of the types of interventions that we've been talking about here today. So, I think both of those sessions are really must-watch sessions that I would like to highlight today. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Well, the [ASCO Quality Care] Symposium also heard some compelling patient perspectives. Dr. Wheeler, can you share some of these messages with us? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: One of the most powerful sessions in the entire meeting was the very first one, which was focused on the metavivor experience (“The Patient Voice: “Metavivors” and Long-Term Survivorship Care”). And I think because part of the intention of the planning committee was to proactively feature patients' voices at this meeting, this particular session was almost entirely comprised of patients and survivors. And living with advanced disease, as we know now, is very different than it was in the past. And we know that patients living with incurable disease may sometimes go on to live 15, 20, 25 years. And their needs are quite different than patients who have early-stage cancer. And so, this session was impactful because it represented a range of experiences. We heard from a caregiver. We heard from a young woman who's living with stage four melanoma, Dr. Tarlise Townsend (“An AYA Perspective”). And one of the things that I took away from this session in particular was that our approaches in the way that we talk to metavivors has to be fundamentally different, that they want providers to be truthful, they want providers to acknowledge the uncertainty and prognosis and the sometimes complex and rapidly changing regimens that may be available for them in terms of dealing with their disease. But they don't want to be condescended to, they don't want to feel like there's information that is being withheld. One of the things that Dr. Townsend shared that was very powerful was that she talked about how her providers, in many cases, outlined an optimistic future for her and would give her maybe unfair expectations about what the future might hold and think about it in terms of the outlier effect. But that's not the case for many people with her condition. And so, she talked about having to do her own death work--and that's her term--and how much time she spent really trying to understand for herself what the future looked like. And it just resonated so much with me. And everybody on this panel had similar stories to share about their experiences. And it reminded me that at the end of the day, we're all human. None of us deal with uncertainty well. None of us deal with death well, or the prospect of death. But the best that we can do in these situations is to be open and honest and straightforward and recognize the fear and the hope and all of that being intermingled, and really respect the person's autonomy and the person's experience and their ability to make plans for themselves going forward. ASCO Daily News: Thank you, Dr. Wheeler. We will have links to these important patient perspectives in the transcript of this episode, as well as the other abstracts discussed today. Dr. Rocque and Dr. Wheeler, thank you very much for sharing these important highlights from the 2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you for having us. Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Thank you so much. ASCO Daily News: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclosures: Dr. Gabrielle Rocque: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Flatiron Research Funding: Carevive Systems, Genentech, Pfizer Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Carevive (an immediate family member) Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Research Funding (institution): Pfizer Foundation Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Matt Chia, Chris Audu, and Elizabeth Andraska sit down with Drs. Kevin Southerland, Karen Ho, and Andrea Obi for a panel discussion introducing basic science in vascular surgery and some tips on getting started and obtaining funding for your research. Dr. Kevin Southerland (@kwsoutherland) is an assistant professor of surgery at Duke.  He is a co-investigator of an NIH U01 grant to study the 4D nucleome of muscle regeneration in ischemia-induced damage and repair and was selected to be the 2021 Wylie Scholar to study transcriptional dynamics and heterogeneity of macrophages in CLTI. Dr. Karen Ho is the John Marquardt Clinical Research Professor of Vascular Surgery at Northwestern.  She was recently awarded an R01 grant from the NHLBI to study the meta-organismal pathways that impact susceptibility to arterial restenosis after vascular surgery. Dr. Andrea Obi (@AndreaObiMD) is an assistant professor of Vascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, a recipient of the 2019 Wylie Scholar award for young investigators in vascular surgery, an NIH K08 awardee and, most recently, the recipient of the SVS Foundation/ACS Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Development Award (a K08 matching grant) to study the role of myeloid epigenetic regulation on venous thrombus resolution.  Relevant Resources for Research and Funding: SVS Research Opportunities in Vascular Surgery AVAS award:  AVF/Jobst research grant AHA research grant VESS award SAAS award SUS award AAS award Vascular Cures/Wylie Scholar program NIH F32 Award Burroughs Wellcome Postdoctoral Grants HHMI Research Grants NIH RePORTER Host Introductions:  Dr. Chris Audu (@ChrisAuduMD) is in his fifth year of training in the integrated vascular surgery residency at the University of Michigan. His research studies the role of chromatin-modifying enzymes on wound healing pathways as well as learning the details of high throughput experimentation in discovering novel acid-amine organic reactions for vascular-focused, medicinal chemistry. He is currently F32 funded and was recently awarded the 2020 VESS Resident Research Award. Dr. Elizabeth Andraska (@eandraska) is in her fifth year of training in the integrated vascular surgery residency at the University of Pittsburgh.  She is T32 funded by the National Institutes of Health and is currently a Burroughs Wellcome Foundation fellow. She is studying the role of platelet-neutrophil complexes in immunothrombosis.  Dr. Matt Chia (@chia_md) is in his 6th of 7 years in the integrated vascular surgery program at Northwestern University. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Illinois College of Medicine and also holds a Master's in Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern.  Follow us @audiblebleeding Learn more about us at https://www.audiblebleeding.com/about-1/ and #jointheconversation.

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

In this episode—which skews more toward a scientific audience until the last five minutes—two American Cancer Society grantees spoke with each other about their recently published new findings in breast cancer research. Sonia de Assis, PhD, is interested in epigenetic inheritance: “In addition to genetic material or DNA, our parents also pass to us molecular memory of their environmental exposures, and that can affect our risk or predisposition to disease including cancer.” Matthew Sikora, PhD, focuses on invasive lobular carcinoma, a type of invasive breast cancer. He feels that “advances in treatment are hindered by our poor understanding of the distinct biology of invasive lobular carcinoma,” and his lab has identified a potential therapeutic target. Sonia de Assis, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Oncology at Georgetown University. She recently published findings showing that, “systemic alterations play a dominant role in epigenetic predisposition to breast cancer in offspring of obese fathers and is transmitted to a second generation:” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86548-w. Matthew Sikora, PhD, of the Univ. of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus and DC, is an Assistant Professor of Pathology. His latest work is titled, “Mediator of DNA damage checkpoint 1 (MDC1) is a novel estrogen receptor co-regulator in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast:” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947745/. 1:49 – Dr. de Assis on epigenetic inheritance and her recently published findings 5:30 – Reactions from Dr. Sikora and what stood out to him about Dr. de Assis's findings: “Figure 2A really smacked me in the face and just got me going…” 9:23 – “Do you think it's actually the tRNA levels that are different that are causing the phenotype, or are those indicative of a different epigenetic context in the sperm?” 11:31 – “One thing I want to make clear is that we think the non-coding RNAs act with a hit-and-run effect…” 12:35 – Dr. Sikora on invasive lobular carcinoma and his new publication 16:08 – Invasive lobular carcinoma versus invasive ductal carcinoma 19:12 – “That's a fabulous question, and my R01 reviewers had the exact same question a few cycles ago…” 22:27 – “How do you see using MDC1 as a therapeutic target because of this dichotomy that's a tumor suppressor but also an oncogene?” 24:30 – They note some interesting connections between their work 27:13 – Dr. de Assis explains why it's important to understand epigenetic memory 28:50 – Dr. Sikora describes why he became interested in invasive lobular carcinoma

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

Dr. David Fajgenbaum is a groundbreaking physician-scientist, disease hunter, speaker, and author. He went from being a beast-like college Quarterback to receiving his last rites while in medical school and nearly dying four more times battling Castleman disease. To try to save his own life, David spearheaded an innovative approach to research through the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) and discovered a treatment that is saving his life and others. He described his journey and lessons learned in Chasing My Cure, which has been translated into five languages, named one of the “Best Non-Fiction Books of 2019,” and profiled by Good Morning America, CNN, and BBC News, among others. Now, he is leading the effort to find treatments for Castleman disease, COVID-19, and other diseases. One of the youngest individuals ever appointed to the faculty at Penn Medicine and the top 1 percent youngest grant awardees of a leading NIH grant (R01), David Fajgenbaum has been profiled in a cover story by The New York Times, recognized on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list and has received numerous awards. Bon and David talk about redesigning the current approach to pharmaceutical treatment of diseases, crowdsourcing in healthcare and why patients can’t wait for miracles.

Paul takes a look at a few topics this morning. Here are some updates and contemporary thinking on IHT and Wills using the most significant IHT bill in the world as an example. Paul then takes a walk through what you're doing to keep your customers and whether you're inadvertently losing them because you haven't changed your processes and systems. Continue Reading

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

This podcast, which overviews Digital Health Technologies and Behavior Change, has been created by the Montefiore Einstein Innovation Biodesign Training Program. Link - https://www.einstein.yu.edu/departments/medicine/innovation/biodesign-training/ The podcast's host is Dr. Nijas Nazar, an Emergency Department Hospitalist at Montefiore. This podcast's guest is Dr. Jonathan Feldman, an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Montefiore Einstein and Professor of Psychology at the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology of Yeshiva University. Dr. Feldman is the Director of the Health Psychology Service at the Max & Celia Parnes Family Psychological and Psychoeducational Services Clinic. He is an expert in health behavior change in asthma, asthma symptom perception, medication adherence, psychiatric disorders, and clinical health psychology. Dr. Feldman has extensive experience conducting randomized controlled trials of behavioral interventions in ethnic minority, inner-city children and adults with asthma and has received multiple R01 grant awards through the NIH.

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

This morning, Paul talks about CPI, inflation and the basket of goods and services. Plus whether you should charge a fee or not and how to "sell" it. PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

In this episode, Sarah interviews Dr. Alfiee Breland-Noble, psychologist, author, researcher, and host of the podcast, “Couched in Color with Dr. Alfiee.” They discuss how and why Dr. Alfiee turned her academic research lab into a successful 501(c)(3) nonprofit, AAKOMA (African American Knowledge Optimized for Mindfully Healthy Adolescents), centered around improving mental health for BIPOC communities and youth. Click here to subscribe on iTunes! Related readings and links: Dr. Alfiee’s Bio Dr. Alfiee’s Website AAKOMA Project: https://aakomaproject.org/ Couched in Color with Dr. Alfiee (Dr. Alfiee’s Podcast) Social Media: @dralfiee and @AAKOMAproject – on Twitter, IG and Facebook @couchedincolor – on Twitter and Facebook @couchedincolorpod – on Instagram Alfiee (Dr. Alfiee) Breland-Noble and The AAKOMA Project, Inc. on LinkedIn Definitions 501(c)(3) = “The portion of the US Internal Revenue Code that allows for federal tax exemption of nonprofit organizations” PCORI = Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute NIH Study Section = “[NIH Grant] Applications are reviewed in study sections (Scientific Review Group, SRG).” Ad hoc member (study section) = “Temporary or ad hoc members of study sections have a commitment to only one meeting of either a permanent study section or a Special Emphasis Panel and are not appointed by the Director, NIH.” Dr. Alfiee’s Tweet that Sarah quotes: https://twitter.com/dralfiee/status/1256622153459535876 Dr. Alfiee on CNN with Anderson Cooper, Sanjay Gupta, and Taraji P. Henson (May 2020) Dr. Alfiee on CNN with Jake Tapper (June 2020) Pivotal Ventures (Investment and incubation company founded by Melinda Gates) Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity (2001 Report from Dr. David Satcher, former surgeon general) Small Business Administration Learning Center Nikki Webber Allen: Dr. Alfiee's friend who gave her advice and encouragement when leaving academia AcaDames S312: Rena, Part 2 (Allyship episode) Crisis Text Line Dr. Shairi Turner (Chief Transformation Officer, Crisis Text Line) Dr. Alifee's 3 key points about how 2020 has changed her: “No more patience at all, whatsoever, coupled with immediate action toward things that go against who I am at my core.” “Do social media in a way that's empowering and to not use social media in a way that's disempowering or that detracts from my emotional wellbeing.” “I often find that I will go back through my own videos and listen to the strategies so that I can practice them.” (Practice what I preach) Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards (2011 Ginther et al. report on R01 success for Black researchers) A Leak in the Academic Pipeline: Identity and Health Among Postdoctoral Women (2019 Ysseldyk et al. article) A full transcript of the episode can be found here. Recorded: January 21, 2021 Twitter: https://twitter.com/AcaDamesPodcast E-mail: acadamespodcast@gmail.com Voicemail #: (919) 666-7301 (Voice memos can also be emailed if you would like!) Creative Director: Mara Buchbinder Music by: Grace Mesa — PremiumBeat.com Production, editing, and admin by Meryem Ok Artwork by Melissa Hudgens at Leafy Greens Designs

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

Elizabeth and Roger discuss how Elizabeth's R01 revision is going, managing up, working the publishing system, and how to define failure.   Show Notes: Simone's Maxims Roger on Twitter Elizabeth on Twitter Effort Report on Twitter Get Roger's and Elizabeth's book, The Art of Data Science Subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts Subscribe to the podcast on Google Play Find past episodes Contact us at theeffortreport @ gmail.com Podcast art by Maggie Matsui

PlayPauseStopMute

David Fajgenbaum, MD, MBA, MSc, FCPP, is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in Translational Medicine & Human Genetics at the University of Pennsylvania, Director of the Penn Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory (CSTL), Executive Director of the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN), and Associate Director, Patient Impact for the Penn Orphan Disease Center. David Fajgenbaum is a groundbreaking physician-scientist, disease hunter, speaker, and bestselling author of the acclaimed memoir, Chasing My Cure: A Doctor's Race to Turn Hope Into Action. He went from being a beast-like college Quarterback to receiving his last rites while in medical school and nearly dying four more times battling Castleman disease. To try to save his own life, David spearheaded an innovative approach to research through the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) and discovered a treatment that is saving his life and others. Now, he is spreading this approach to other diseases such as COVID19. One of the youngest individuals ever appointed to the faculty at Penn Medicine and the top 1 percent youngest grant awardees of a leading NIH grant (R01), David Fajgenbaum has been recognized on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, as a top healthcare leader by Becker's Hospital Review, the Global Genes RARE Champion of Hope: Science awardee, and one of three recipients--including Vice President Joe Biden--of a 2016 Atlas Award from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. He has published scientific papers in high-impact journals such as Blood, Lancet Hematology, and the Journal of Clinical Investigation, including a paper selected as one of the top innovations in science and medicine by STAT News in 2020. Before co-founding the CDCN, David co-founded and led the Actively Moving Forward Support Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting grieving college students. David Fajgenbaum has been profiled in a cover story by The New York Times as well as by Good Morning America, CNN, and the Today Show, among others. David earned a BS from Georgetown University magna cum laude with honors and distinction, MSc from the University of Ox-ford, MD from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, and MBA from The Wharton School.

Dr. Sachdev-Ost graduated from medical school at Icahn School of Medicine in New York City, where she stayed to complete both her general surgery residency and vascular surgery fellowship. During her residency she also completed 2 research years in basic science at Mount Sinai and Rockefeller University studying platelet-leukocyte interactions in vascular disease. She then went on to UPMC in 2006 as a surgeon-scientist, where she also secured an independent R01 grant in 2018. Dr. Sachdev heads a research lab that focuses on the role of Toll-like receptors in angiogenesis and muscle regeneration. She is currently the site chief of vascular surgery at Magee Women’s Hospital, the associate program director of the vascular surgery residency and fellowship at UPMC and was recently appointed as an associate editor for clinical research focused on diversity, equity and inclusion at JVS.   Useful links: Dr. Sachdev-Ost Editorial “Moving ahead”: https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(20)32361-2/fulltext   Recruiting women to vascular surgery and other surgical specialties: https://www.jvascsurg.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0741-5214%2812%2901613-8

Paul talks this morning on three topics - taking your exam at home - a first-hand experience from Paul. The Leasehold changes being enacted shortly and finally, if time allows, a clip on collective investments - the Collective Six. Paul will continue to record this afternoon and will upload separately videos on Presenting Online Raising the Bar with 7 Tips Continue Reading

Paul looks at two topics this morning connected to news events. Firstly Brexit - who hasn't heard of this lol or is bored of it too. However, Paul explains how your world as a mortgage adviser is effected especially if you're studying. Secondly, he takes look at the economy and the growth opportunities particularly the sectors and firms who stand Continue Reading

Happy New Year. Paul looks at some sales skills for mortgage advisers this morning to help you advise or sell more. Focussing on how to pre-empt objections for selling protection. Plus he gives you a tmely boost to make you sit up and make the most of the mortgage marketplace this year. PlayPauseStopMute

Paul ends the year with his final live stream looking at two topics - the last one on welfare benefits plus an insightful clip on setting your goals as an IFA for 2021 onwards - why you should become an IFA, the market opportunities and the challenges the sector faces. Which can be solved by you. Have a very Merry Continue Reading

CardioNerds (Carine Hamo, Amit Goyal, and Daniel Ambinder) discuss the obesity epidemic and how it relates to the cardiovascular system with Dr. Chiadi Ndumele, cardiologist and epidemiologist at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and chairs the obesity subcommittee of the American Heart Association (AHA). They cover obesity definitions, epidemiology, strengths and limitations of different biometrics, including BMI, impact on myocardial structure and function, and current pharmacologic & surgical options for weight loss. They also discuss the practical approach to addressing obesity with patients. This episode was produced by Dr. Carine Hamo. Show notes & references by Dr. Daniel Ambinder. Episode graphic by Dr. Carine Hamo Cardionerds Cardiovascular Prevention PageCardioNerds Episode PageSubscribe to our newsletter- The HeartbeatSupport our educational mission by becoming a Patron! Show notes Coming soon! Cardionerds Cardiovascular Prevention Series The Cardionerds CV prevention series  includes in-depth deep dives on so many prevention topics including the ABCs of prevention, approach to obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and anti-diabetes agents, personalized risk and genetic risk assessments, hyperlipidemia, women’s cardiovascular prevention, coronary calcium scoring and so much more! We are truly honored to be producing the Cardionerds CVD Prevention Series in collaboration with the American Society for Preventive Cardiology! The ASPC is an incredible resource for learning, networking, and promoting the ideals of cardiovascular prevention! This series is kicked off by a message from Dr. Amit Khera, President of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology and President of the SouthWest Affiliate of the American Heart Association. Guest Profiles Dr. Chiadi Ndumele is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Ndumele graduated from Harvard University School of Medicine. He completed his Internal Medicine training at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where he also served as Chief Medical Resident. He was Chief Cardiology Fellow at Johns Hopkins University. During fellowship training, Dr. Ndumele received an MHS and Ph.D. in Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Ndumele’s research has been supported by career development awards from the NHLBI and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a Catalyst Award from Johns Hopkins, an R01 from the NHLBI and an AHA Strategically Focused Research Network Grant. He has received national recognition for his work, including a Young Physician-Scientist Award from the American Society of Clinical Investigation. He has national leadership roles including Chair of the Obesity Subcommittee of the American Heart Association (AHA) and Editorial Board membership on the journals Circulation and Circulation Research. Dr. Ndumele’s research focuses on mechanisms linking adiposity to CVD and strategies to improve prediction and prevention. References and Links Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: A report of the American College of cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the obesity society. Circulation. 2014;129(25 SUPPL. 1):102-138. doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437739.71477.ee Yu Z, Grams ME, Ndumele CE, et al. Association Between Midlife Obesity and Kidney Function Trajectories: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Am J Kidney Dis. September 2020. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.025 Kaze AD, Musani SK, Bidulescu A, et al. Plasma Adipokines and Glycemic Progression Among African Americans: Findings from the Jackson Heart Study. Diabet Med. November 2020. doi:10.1111/dme.14465 Cohen LP, Vittinghoff E, Pletcher MJ, et al. Association of Midlife Cardiovascular Risk Factors with Risk of Heart Failure Subtypes Later in Life. J Card Fail. November 2020.

Paul spends 15 minutes giving you a 101 on the topic of trusts and life assurance. So many mortgage advisers are thinking about protecting their clients now and many feel their understanding of trusts is quite limited from the CeMAP alone, so Paul takes you through what you need to do. Remember our Winter Cohort #2 starts on 11th January Continue Reading

Paul at http://www.advisercpd.com/ spends 24 minutes today looking at his second part on welfare benefits. Today we discuss disability benefits. Later Paul gives you some top tips on how to do the remote exam at home, watch this carefully to prevent being failed and having to go on social media to rant about it. Plus a neat clip on how Continue Reading

Paul at http://www.advisercpd.com/ spends 18 minutes today looking at his first part on welfare benefits. Today we discuss sickness and death state benefits known as Employment and Support plus Bereveavement Benefits. Essential to know when you're giving advice on protection products to mortgage clients, which you really should do if you are ethical. Remember we teach you to be decent Continue Reading

PlayPauseStopMute

Paul spends 20 minutes looking at structural integrity on properties following the collapse of the house in Durham Square, Chelsea last week. Plus an update on how the FCA view equity release advice process and it's not rosy and finally a short segment on recognising buying signals on video with clients. PlayPauseStopMute

Paul appears live this morning to update you on all things mortgages and give you some pieces on REITS and the new Green Home Grant. Plus a useful sales idea using single-use videos. Enjoy PlayPauseStopMute

Paul suggests how you can tweak your traditional in-person sales process to for the online video model. This works whether you're B2B or B2C PlayPauseStopMute

Paul at http://www.advisercpd.com/ spends 18 minutes on a couple of mortgage adviser topics. The first is a sales tip around "Away From" motivation with Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs). The second topic is a session on the skills you need to develop to run online meetings with clients and customers. Because that seems to be the future. PlayPauseStopMute

In this episode, Whitney interviews Dr. Clara Lee, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon and a health services researcher at the Ohio State University. Dr. Lee provides insight into her career development and job satisfaction and reflects on how training in a male-dominated environment shaped her personality (often in unexpected ways). She also describes her experience being part of a blended family and highlights the importance of shared decision-making with patients. Related readings and links Dr. Clara Lee’s faculty profile at OSU: https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/find-a-doctor/clara-lee-md-69159 3-Min Video: “Meet Clara Lee, MD, MPP, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon at Ohio State”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOkE9mqG_0 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), cancer statistics database: https://seer.cancer.gov/ R grant - referring to "R01": https://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/grant-writing-and-application-process/research-grants-r.shtml Director of Women's Academic Advancement (Clara's role in the OSU School of Medicine) https://medicine.osu.edu/recent-highlights/lee-shapes-womens-lives-at-ohio-state The movie Inception - plot summary about planting ideas in people's minds https://collider.com/inception-synopsis-christopher-nolan/ Clara's paper (JAMA surgery) on predictions of wellbeing after breast cancer reconstruction https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2671391 A full transcript of the episode can be found here. Recorded: July 25, 2020 Twitter: https://twitter.com/AcaDamesPodcast E-mail: acadamespodcast@gmail.com Voicemail #: (919) 666-7301 (Voice memos can also be emailed if you would like!) Creative Director: Mara Buchbinder Music by: Grace Mesa — PremiumBeat.com Production, editing, and admin by Meryem Ok Artwork by Melissa Hudgens at Leafy Greens Designs

I'm online today for 20 minutes on one topic. It's a vital one too. Internet Lead Generation. Last week we had Alex Curtis online to chat with us about marketing on the internet and he inspired me to add my pennyworth, so to speak. Here's your blueprint on how to get leads for your mortgage or financial services practice. I Continue Reading

Paul's 'aving a natter with you again this week for 20 minutes and is talking about the married Couples' Allowance if you're in the Equity release market plus two neat lead generation techniques that really work for mortgage advisers and IFAs who happen to be self-employed and need leads. Remember we have Alex Curtis doing a live webinar for our Continue Reading

PlayPauseStopMute

Dr. Manisha Juthani C94, an Infectious Diseases physician at Yale School of Medicine. She’s helped to lead Yale’s COVID preparedness and treatment of patients as well as runs the Infectious Diseases Fellowship program, which keeps her very busy! She completed her undergraduate training @upenn, attended Cornell University Medical College, completed residency training at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Campus, and was a Chief Resident at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. She arrived at Yale School of Medicine in 2002 for Infectious Diseases Fellowship Training and joined the full-time faculty in 2006. She assumed the role of Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program Director in 2012. Her federally funded research has focused on infections in older adults, specifically urinary tract infections and pneumonia. Most notably, she was the Principal Investigator of an R01-funded research project that resulted in the 2016 JAMA publication entitled, “Effect of Cranberry Capsules on Bacteriuria Plus Pyuria Among Older Women in Nursing Homes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” This publication received widespread attention in the lay press, including The New York Times and CNN to name a few, and achieved an Almetric Attention Score of 1564 that keeps on rising, placing it in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric. In December 2016, The New Yorker identified this research as one of the most notable medical findings of 2016, and Dr. Juthani was interviewed and featured in the GeriPal and Gastropod podcasts. Additionally, in her parallel work with pneumonia prevention, she was the first author on the 2015 Clinical Infectious Diseases publication entitled, “A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Multicomponent Intervention Protocol for Pneumonia Prevention Among Nursing Home Elders.” In addition to her academic responsibilities, Dr. Juthani enjoys writing about medical topics in the lay press.

PlayPauseStopMute

This morning he takes a look at the taxation changes for the new syllabus - not too many thankfully and dives into the topic of Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy - how to own a property jointly particularly when you're thinking of equity release. PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

Matthew O’Brien, Ph.D., BCBA-D, is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. He completed his doctorate in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations from the University of Iowa under the guidance of Dr. David Wacker and completed postdoctoral fellowships in neuropsychology and behavioral psychology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Dr. O’Brien serves as the Director of Biobehavioral Services and Director of Research and Psychology for the Iowa LEND program. He is a Co-Principal Investigator on a multisite R01 research grant funded by NIH evaluating behavioral assessment through telehealth and conducts research related to functional analysis of severe and challenging behavior in individuals with autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Kelly M. Schieltz, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Stead Family Department of Pediatrics at the University of Iowa. She is a licensed psychologist and Board Certified Behavior Analyst. For over 15 years, she has worked in a variety of outpatient clinics for problem behavior, and on a variety of federally-funded and state-funded research and service grants that focused on training parents and school professionals on behavior analytic procedures in-vivo and via telehealth. Additionally, she has trained primary care physicians to diagnose autism via ECHO Autism. Currently, she directs a brief outpatient clinic for problem behavior and serves as an investigator on two federally-funded research grants: one focused on training parents in their homes via telehealth and one that evaluates behavioral persistence and treatment relapse when treatment is challenged. She also serves as an expert panel member of ECHO Autism: Behavior Solutions. All Autism Talk (allautismtalk.com) is sponsored by LEARN Behavioral (learnbehavioral.com).

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

PlayPauseStopMute

This episode is the first in a series produced in collaboration with the Society for Vascular Surgery Young Surgeons Advisory Committee (SVS YSC). This episode will focus on establishing a research lab and setting the groundwork for a productive academic career. Our guests for this episode are two members of the Young Surgeons Advisory Committee, Dr. Mohamed Zayed and Dr. Nicholas Osborne. Dr. Mohamed Zayed (zayedm@wustl.edu) has been an assistant professor of surgery at Washington University in St. Louis since 2014.  He received his medical degree and Ph.D. in pharmacology from UNC and vascular surgery residency training from Stanford.  He has received many research awards for his translational research, including the Vascular Cures Wylie Scholar, American Surgical Association Foundation Fellow and in 2016 was awarded a K08 career development grant from the NIH, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Dr. Nicholas Osborne (nichosbo@umich.edu, @nichosbo) has been an assistant professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan since 2014.  He received his medical degree from Dartmouth and general surgery residency and vascular surgery fellowship at the University of Michigan.  He has received multiple awards for his health services research from the American Heart Association, industry and has submitted a grant through the NIH Department for Health and Human Services. Resources discussed on the show: AAS: https://www.aasurg.org/awards/ AAS Fall Courses: Grant writing course: https://www.aasurg.org/aas-fall-courses/ ASC AAS Investigator's Course: https://academicsurgicalcongress.org/sic/ Wylie Scholars Grant: https://vascularcures.org/wylie-scholar-program-2/ VESS:  https://vesurgery.org/grants-awards/ AVF: https://www.veinforum.org/avf-foundation/bsn-jobst-research-grant/ AHA: https://professional.heart.org/professional/ResearchPrograms/ApplicationInformation/ScientistPrincipalinvestigators/UCM_316962_For-Scientists.jsp SVS: https://vascular.org/career-tools-training/awards-and-scholarships Association of VA Surgeons: https://www.vasurgeons.org/research-awards.html HHMI downloadable book: Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty Melina Kibbe's book: Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science Three main categories of research funding: Institutional microgrants Internal funding mechanisms through research centers or foundations at your institution: university, VA, etc. SVS Other professional societies' awards: AHA, ADA, VESS, etc. Foundation award K award series: career development grants for early-stage investigators R01: highest level, most coveted NIH funding

Subscribe to the podcast through iTunes and Google Play.    Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for-- people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to have as my guest Dr. Ned Sharpless, the director of the National Cancer Institute. The NCI is the largest funder of cancer research in the world, and it has helped to drive many of the major prevention and treatment advances we've seen over the past 50 years. This includes things like HPV vaccination and the identification of the link between HER2 status and breast cancer outcomes and treatment, as well as new discoveries that have dramatically improved outcomes for childhood cancer. Dr. Sharpless, welcome, and thank you for joining me today. Now, we really have a whole lot to discuss, but before we get to our planned topics, I have to jump ahead and start with the president's State of the Union address, when President Trump mentioned that he wants to see $500 million appropriated for childhood cancers over the next decade. Can you talk a little bit about how you expect that, specifically, to play out? What will the NCI be able to do with those new specified funds for pediatric research? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Sure. I think childhood cancer-- childhood cancer is an area where the National Cancer Institute has had a long interest and a robust portfolio of research. And I think it is an area where we've made some progress, in terms of mortality, over the last few decades. But you have to say two things about childhood cancer. While progress has been good, and we're making-- more kids are surviving cancer therapy today than ever-- there's still a long way to go. Too many kids dying of cancer in the United States, and even the kids that we're able to cure have these significant lifelong survivorship challenges, in some cases. So the therapy that is curative may leave patients with side effects of surgery and chemotherapy and radiation for the rest of their lives. So better treatments for kids and less toxic treatments for kids are what we are really looking for. And with that amount of money, I think a good-- the thing that it appears to me that one could do to most quickly move the needle in childhood cancer-- which, as you know, is a collection of less common cancers, even rare cancers-- is really a more intentional effort at aggregating and using and linking clinical data with molecular data and other sorts of patient data, so that we can really learn from every child with cancer in the United States, so that we can really figure out what's working in certain populations and then disseminate that information as rapidly as possible-- without having, in all cases, to rely on slower clinical trial structures that are challenged for certain populations where accrual can be difficult. So I think that is the vision for the president's initiative, is to, with additional funding, allow for very aggressive, intentional, and organized data linkages and data aggregation so that we can learn from every trial and therefore treat every child's cancer in a better, more effective way. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: You know, I think that's great. And that actually provides two different segues-- one I'm going to pick up right now, and one I want to come back to. The first is about data-- big data, specifically. We'll come back to that. The second is about the way the pediatric oncology community for years has really led in designing studies that could accrue the majority of children diagnosed with various specific diseases. And that leads me, that idea of eligibility and the structure of research, to ask about the way that you're thinking about modernizing clinical trials. This is something I know you wrote about in JAMA Viewpoint in the last couple of months. You addressed financial pressures, the need to increase overall rates of accrual to the trials, especially representing patients from underserved populations. Can you expand a little bit on that effort and what kind of progress you see as possible in the coming months and years? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Yeah, I think everything we do successfully in cancer today is in some ways the results of a clinical trial. And this is clearly one of the most important things the NCI does, in terms of moving basic science into patient care through experimental clinical trials. And it's an area where we-- frankly, a lot's changed in the last couple of decades. When I was a wee fellow, the clinical trials apparatus was very different from the way it is 20 years later today. And we need to make sure that we modernize the clinical trials process to keep up with the changes in our understanding of the biology and the new kinds of therapy we have for cancer. So that brings up a bunch of items that are areas where the NCI is really doing a lot of things. So, for example, one of the first problems I noticed when coming to the National Cancer Institute was that the clinical trials infrastructure, the big networks that we have for doing these kinds of trials, were under-resourced, that they had a funding problem. And they were becoming non-competitive with the trials sponsored by industry. And this showed itself in many ways, in accrual fees for patients, or the wait times to get the trial open, or the slow accrual once the trial was open. And so they were laboring under a number of problems. And so we decided we had to invest in the Clinical Trials Network and have been doing that and will be continuing to doing that in a number of ways-- through direct funding to attempt something like the National Clinical Trials Network or the NCORP, for example, the NCORP organization, but also by additional funding for biobanks and data aggregation initiatives, targeted clinical trials, et cetera. I think we've also-- there are some structural problems with the clinical trials that you alluded to. For example, eligibility criteria, I think, hadn't really kept pace with modern clinical trials. And I think ASCO and other groups have played a really important leadership role in identifying what are good eligibility criteria and which ones are not as necessary anymore. And then, do we have to have the same criteria in all the trials, and be more thoughtful about how those are used as a way to enhance accrual, because often we have a-- superfluous eligibility criteria can limit accrual. And increasing accrual by a variety of measures is really important. And we've thought a lot about how to do this through novel ways of clinical [? house ?] matching. I think one of the more successful efforts we've had in clinical trials accrual recently has been the MATCH trial, the NCI MATCH trial, which was able to accrue 6,000 patients at 1,100 sites in the United States, filling a targeted accrual two years ahead of schedule. It's the fastest-accruing trial in the history of the NCI. And I think one of the things MATCH teaches you is that if you have an interesting trial that's written in a nimble way that is open in the community-- that patients don't have to drive six hours to a cancer center, but can go to a local NCORP site, for example-- then those trials will accrue. We can accrue quickly, and we can accrue underserved populations, and we can accrue rare cancers. And that framework is more nimble than, say, the large phase III randomized trial run only at cancer centers that we had 10 years ago. There is still a role for large, randomized, phase III trials. The NCI is not backing away from that, or where we will support those. But I think, as we discussed in the JAMA piece, we really have to be thoughtful about where the NCI needs to be involved with those kinds of trials, compared to which of those should be supported by industry, for example. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: It sounds like you're alluding to something I think you and I discussed even when you first got into your current role, which is the identification of those trials that industry should run, essentially, itself, and those trials that the NCI should support as complementary to industry trials. Can you expand a little bit on how you see that distinction and where you draw that line? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Yeah, the thing to know about clinical trials in oncology in the United States right now is most are actually paid for by industry. There's a huge pharmaceutical industry spend on clinical trials, and from my point of view, that's great. The fact that industry is paying for trials to develop therapies for cancer patients-- that's less money the NCI has to spend on those same questions. So we think that's a wonderful development and healthy for cancer research. But if that's the way it's going to be, then the NCI has to ask itself-- for the precious moneys that we have to spend on clinical trials, we need to use those in a way that's maximally effective and, in particular, not duplicative with what industry sponsors are doing. It's important to say, we do a lot of work with industry. So it's not just us either-or. Many of our trials, through these agreement processes called CRADAs, allow us to do trials with pharma sponsors and use their compounds in our trials. And that's a real boon to our research effort, as well. But there are certain kinds of trials that are very important where we really want to know the answer, but they're a bad fit for what industry is going to fund. For example, a de-escalation trial-- that's a trial where there's a standard of care that's pretty good, but the therapy is toxic. And so we'd like to see if we can get the same good outcome in a population using less aggressive therapy. A very important example of this was the TAILORx trial recently, where we showed that based on a genetic risk score, an RNA-based risk score of the breast cancer, women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer-- many of them could forego cytotoxic chemotherapy and just take anti-hormonal agents and have the same good outcome in terms of their long-term survival. So that's a trial that is not going to be industry-led, for a variety of reasons. But I think it is the kind of question that's really important for patients. It's important, also, to say that de-escalation trials are hard to do. They require a lot of thought. They don't always work. And so they require these comprehensive thoughtfulness and infrastructure that the National Clinical Trials Network can provide. So an additional example is these multi-modality trials we have, where maybe two different agents come from two different pharmaceutical companies, and then there's some surgery and some radiation. There's very complex, multi-integrated care. And those can be very hard for a single sponsor to run, but, again, can be a very good fit for the NCI. And there are many other examples like this. But I think the real question we have to ask is, if our budget is limited and finite, what are the trials that the NCI really should do and lead on? Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Yeah. And I think one of the points there is you need to conduct-- we need to conduct-- trials as efficiently as possible, getting the most so-called bang for the buck. You alluded to the fact that the NCI, along with ASCO, has been working on making trials essentially more efficient by making them more representative of the actual cancer population we end up treating. And a specific area of focus for us at ASCO, in this collaboration and also in our TAPUR trial, has been driving the eligibility age down below 18. My understanding is that this is something that you're adopting as a recommendation across the NCI, as well. I guess my question is, how broad and how quickly do you expect to see this implemented? Dr. Ned Sharpless: We have a number of efforts related to these barriers to accrual. You mentioned age as one of them and other sorts of exclusion criteria. And we've looked deeply and thought about this sort of care across the continuum of life-- both age limits on the less than 18 side, but also at the greater than 65-year-old side, where we see, often, eligibility criteria structured around a maximum age that don't often make a lot of sense. So that is one of several topics that we are addressing. As you know, we have a variety of networks and programs, and we fund a variety of kinds of trials. Some are led predominantly by the academic institution. Some are led through NCI networks. And so we are rolling out these policies, not in a one shot fits all way, but across these networks at different scales. They often require scientific buy-in from the other participants, and you know how that process works. I think this is an area, fortunately, where there is a lot of buy-in, where we're not having lengthy debates about whether or not we should do this. Really, the question is how we operationalize it and make it happen as quickly as possible. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: That's great. And you know how strongly supportive we are, on lots of levels, for this effort and the related ones, in terms of barriers to accrual. I want to pivot, though, back to something that you introduced earlier about the big data. And my understanding is, in the annual plan and your bypass budget for 2020, you specifically called out the need to harness big data to speed up all of our work across the cancer research enterprise. And there are many companies, organizations-- we ourselves at ASCO have CancerLinQ-- that are involved in trying to collect data, share it, analyze it, and advance science and clinical care. But what exactly do you see as the NCI's role in facilitating this, and what do you think is our biggest challenge going forward? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Yeah, it's an interesting topic. I think the-- it's maybe two things to say off the top about big data in cancer research. The first is the NCI already has one very important example of how big data can transform a field, and that's The Cancer Genome Atlas, which later became the Genomic Data Commons. This is petabytes of genomic data that we make available in the cloud now to any researcher, basically, who is interested in cancer. And that set of data has led to thousands of papers and just a fundamental reorganization of how we think about cancer biology in many ways. And it's been a huge success, I would argue, and well worth the investment of the NCI to do it. And the data has been used in ways we never envisioned. We never thought of some of the papers and applications that would come out of the analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas, for example. But the problem, then, one quickly sees, is that while that data set is great, it's limited. It doesn't have the clinical data, it doesn't have radiology and histology, it doesn't have-- we don't really have a way of binning big epidemiologic cohort data, for example. So the GDC, the TCGA, the Genomic Data Commons, proves how useful these kinds of data aggregation efforts can be, but also makes very clear what the shortcomings of our modern efforts are. The second thing to say is that this is a problem where the NCI is well-poised to be a leader, right? There are a number of issues around data sharing and data aggregation that really benefit from a Switzerland-like federal entity, a non-conflicted, dispassionate entity like the NCI that just wants to create the data structure in a way that's maximally beneficial for everyone, so that there are-- this is an area where the imprimatur of the federal government really allows us to play a role that would be hard for other groups to take on directly. And so I think this is a reason why so many groups have been looking to the NCI for leadership on this topic. So what are the challenges to big data? Well, I think that one challenge that has been spoken about a lot publicly is this issue of data hoarding by scientists and physicians and people who have these sets of data they don't want to share for academic competitive reasons. That is a problem. I'm not going to say that doesn't exist. But I don't actually think that's the biggest problem. I think a bigger problem around data sharing is just it turns out to be really hard to do. And by hard, I mean expensive. It turns out to be-- these various data sets were not created, initially, with the intent of sharing them. They're often in different formats. They're often governed by different kinds of data use agreements, which are governed by the consent form that the patient signed to have their data included. And so linking them can be both very technically difficult, from just a computer science point of view, and can also provide a lot of administrative and logistical hassles from the data sharing, data use agreement point of view. And so each one of these things is just something the NCI has got to work through, or someone like the NCI-- is figuring out how to link disparate data sets, how to get the right kind of data abstracted from charts that we want, how to develop the right work force to study big data with big data analytics, and then that is a big problem. So there are a number of areas where the NCI can address the challenges. And I think we'll make progress. I mean, the good news is that we understand these problems. This is not like we need to-- there's some fundamental problem of biology that we need to figure out. The bad news is that the problems are weedy, complex, and many, many layered, and require us working through them. But that's what we can do. We have support from the government for this. The moonshot had a lot of funding for data initiatives, which we've been employing to get these structures going. And now the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative, for example, I think could really-- that's a nice demonstration project, if you will, because it's the right size. Childhood cancer is about 16,000 cases a year. And so I think we can show what this radical data sharing, if you will, this data liberation project can do-- you know, that population and how useful it could be to larger groups of patients like lung cancer, breast cancer, things like that. So I think that these are the kinds of things the NCI can do with help from other federal agencies and academic partners and groups like ASCO. This is certainly not an area where we plan to go it alone. There are a lot of stakeholders and a lot of great ideas. And I think that by organizing and convening these initiatives, we'll make progress. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Well, I really, first of all, appreciate your calling out the fact that data hoarding in isolation is not the single biggest problem, because I think that's a frequently-cited limit. And I agree with you that it's less of an issue than all of the other ones that you highlighted. In that regard, I understand that you just announced a new office. I think it's the Office of Data Sharing? Can you expand on or explain how that relates to these challenges and what it's going to, hopefully, accomplish for us? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Sure. The Office of Data Sharing is something within our Center for Bioinformatics and Information Technology. It's getting stood up now. It's been around for about a year, even less than that. It has a new leader and a few FTs, and it has a number of jobs intended for it. I mean, there are a number of ways that we would like the Office of Data sharing to-- a number of problems that we think that the ODS can help serve with the external community in terms of data sharing, like these issues around consent and data privacy that I mentioned. But right now, an intense focus of that office, because it's something we really need to solve, are related, really, to the issue of accepting data and allowing access to NCI data at present. So we have this complex structure whereby academic investigators can give data sets to the NCI. That's harder than it sounds, because we have to make sure the data are of good quality and they're properly consented, and we understand the data usage agreements and that kind of stuff. And then we have a means to allow access to those data to accredentialed investigators. And there are a bunch of issues with that that are more complicated than you and I would want to go into right now. But I think that's consuming a lot of the bandwidth at that office right now, is the problems around, for example, the dbGaP entity, whereby different investigators give data to the NCI and the rest of the NIH. That has caused a bit of a bottleneck, and so we're trying to work through some of those issues. One thing, for example, that I think the ODS can do and is doing already is this sort of concierge-like function. For people who have large, valuable data sets that they'd like to give to the NCI, we should be able to take those data sets as quickly as possible. But something that's happened in the transmission of those data is that we've realized the quality isn't quite what we wanted or the format isn't exactly right, and so we have these questions, and they go back to the investigator. And there's this sort of cyclical loop that can take months and really substantially delay the process. And so the ODS is jumping in there early on and intervening on that loop and making sure the data are the right format and the right quality at the time of initial submission, so that we don't have this back and forth that wastes a lot of time. So I think those data access and data transmission issues are a prime focus for the office right now, although it has a much larger mission as it gets stood up. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Yeah, a little bit like CENTRA that Rich Schilsky runs for us here at ASCO, in terms of access. But at any rate, I want to take the remaining time we have, and maybe this is a speed round on the cancer research workforce. So a couple of quick questions, perhaps-- first of all, has the Cancer Moonshot Initiative had an impact directly on the kinds of awards that you're making available to researchers? And if so, how do you think that might evolve in the next couple of years? Dr. Ned Sharpless: I think the moonshot, as you know, was intended to focus on these 10 areas identified by a blue-ribbon panel that were thought to be ripe for clinical translation, just about ready to go into clinic and to benefit patients in a very direct, immediate way. So the moonshot per se didn't include funds for things like really hardcore basic science or training, although certainly moonshot moneys are being used to some extent in both those areas, as necessary, as part of these translational efforts. So I think that what the moonshot has done-- it's done a couple of things. So first of all, that most of the awards granted by the moonshot mechanisms are more these-- are not the traditional R01, but are more of these consortia and network grants. And I think we've built a lot of infrastructure for research efforts, say, in immuno-oncology or in pediatric cancer or in survivorship. And those networks will both-- well, they will live on beyond the moonshot in some cases, I'm sure. And those networks will provide integrated research efforts, but also some training opportunities. So most of those include junior scientists and junior clinical investigators, and so there will be some opportunity for the moonshot both to drive the scientific area of study and also provide some training opportunity for the new people coming up. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Well, speaking of junior and new, I listened to your conference call, I guess, about a week or two ago talking about the pay line. Can you expand on your plans to support young investigators right now, given the always-present constraints in funding? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Right. This is a particular problem for the National Cancer Institute, because we've seen this relatively-- there's no other word than "massive" influx in the number of applications for the so-called R01 grants, the independent investigator-initiated award at the NCI. And this is-- our award number is something up like 60% over the last nine years or so. So this rapid increase-- which is, in most ways, a very good thing. I mean, that says that new scientists are coming to our field with new ideas and new ways to treat cancer, and the NCI can pick among these many applications and fund the very best ones. But it has this pernicious bad effect for the academic investigator community, and that is that their individual chances of getting a grant are lower. If paylines are really the number of funded awards divided by the number of applications, and the denominator goes up faster than the numerator-- both are going up, but the denominator goes up faster-- then the paylines are going to go down. And we think this is particularly a problem for junior scientists, because established scientists have seen paylines come and go and funding realities change. But new scientists aren't as used to the life of the independent researcher and, we think, are most likely to either leave science or move out of cancer research to another area of science. And we'll have to try and minimize that from happening, to the extent possible. So one of the things we've done at the behest, in fact, of 21st Century Cures, which included language asking the NCI in the United States to do this, was really focused on these so-called early stage investigator, the ESI. So the ESI is faculty. That's someone who's gotten a job, generally in an academic institution, and is now writing their first R01 grant, their first independent scientist grant. And we've done a few things for this population. One thing that's really important is we give them a special payline. We give them, effectively, a higher chance of getting funding. So if, say, paylines are on the order of 8% now for all Comer grants, for ESIs they'll be more like 14%, right? So a significant-- or 12%, in that range. So, significantly higher than what the general community is. I want to point out, also, that paylines are lower than the actual success rates of the NCI, which is a better number. The reason success rates are higher is because we do fund a lot of grants outside of the score. It's a little bit of inside baseball. But generally, if you write a grant to the NCI, your chance of getting it is more like 12%. And if you're an early stage investigator, it's more like 16%. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: Thanks, Ned. To switch gears a bit, I know you've worked with the NCI throughout your career. But now you've been at the Institute's helm for nearly a year and a half. Has your understanding of the NCI and its role in cancer research changed or evolved in this newest assignment? Dr. Ned Sharpless: I think it has to be said that I was an NCI watcher my entire research career, and I thought I knew the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health pretty well-- as well as one can know these organizations from the external perspective. But since starting at the NCI, I've really learned that this amazing organization is much larger than even I realized, and that the scale and scope of the NCI is truly both awe-inspiring and, in some ways, daunting. I had a series of meetings as I started as NCI director where I would learn about these sprawling comprehensive cancer prevention and control efforts or new areas of basic research or clinical trials. And I just really had had no idea that the NCI was involved in some of these activities. So it was very illuminating. In some ways, it's thrilling, the things the NCI is doing. But I think it also made very clear to me another thing that I think I knew at some level, but didn't really appreciate the full scale of this until becoming NCI director, and that's the issue of-- although the NCI is huge and has this great reach and comprehensive nature, we are limited in scale. Our resources are finite, and the NCI, therefore, is really forced to make these difficult choices about which areas of cancer research to fund and how best to address our mission of reducing cancer suffering. So I think I was surprised both by the scale and scope of the NCI, but also by the fact that, despite how big the NCI is, it still has significant limitations on what it's able to do and has to make these difficult choices. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: ASCO recently launched the "I lived to conquer cancer" awareness campaign that spotlights federally-funded cancer researchers and the patients who inspire them. I want to close out our conversation today by asking you, why do you live to conquer cancer? Dr. Ned Sharpless: Yeah, I think like just about everybody in the United States, my life has been personally touched by cancer. I've had friends and family members get cancer, and my father even died from cancer. Both of my sisters are cancer survivors. So I think I have a real personal stake-- like everyone in the United States, almost-- in seeing the reduction of cancer suffering and conquering cancer, if you will. I also find the problem fascinating from an academic point of view. I was drawn to cancer research because I found the biological questions of cancer research so fascinating. So I live to conquer cancer from this intellectual point of view, as well. And lastly, I have the experience of being a doctor, of being a medical oncologist taking care of patients with cancer. And I've had the frustrating experience of having patients not do well who I thought, I wish we could have done more for-- as well as the experience of taking someone who has a pretty terrible cancer but yet driving it into remission with therapy and then watching that person effectively survive the disease and become cured of it over years. And that is so special and so thrilling to be a part of that as a physician. So I live to cure cancer because it's personally touched my life, because I am a scientist who is fascinated by the biology of cancer, and as a doctor I've had the experience of helping people survive their cancer. And once you do that once, you just want to do that over and over again. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis: That's really great, Ned. It's fascinating to hear why progress against cancer is personally so important to you. And I'm sure all of our listeners enjoy hearing that, as well. I want to thank you again for joining me for this ASCO in Action podcast and for all the work you do at the NCI and across the entire cancer care community. Well, thank you for having me. As you know, one of NCI's most important partners in this effort against cancer is really ASCO. And so it's great to speak to you today. And thanks for all the things that you guys do for patients with cancer. Again, thanks to all of you for listening today. Those of you who want to follow Dr. Sharpless on Twitter, he's @NCIDirector. And you can always follow me @CliffordHudis, as well as ASCO @cancer. If you do that, you can stay connected to our work, of course, on social media. You can also go to the NCI's website, which is NCI.gov. With that, again, I want to thank Dr. Sharpless for joining me today. And thanks to all of you for tuning in.    

Four-time American Cancer Society grantee Dr. Pam Kreeger, Associate Professor in the Dept. of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, talked about she's leveraging ACS funding to bring her research on metastasis in ovarian cancer closer to benefiting patients. 2:10 – On her four different ACS grants (a Postdoctoral Fellowship, Institutional Research Grant pilot award, Research Scholar Grant, and Mission Boost Grant) – “I’m not exaggerating when I say to people that I probably owe my career to ACS” 4:53 – On the science behind her Mission Boost Grant – “It builds from the Research Scholar Grant, where after about three years of work we decoded this mechanism where the macrophages in the ovarian cancer microenvironment can actually change the behavior of the mesothelial cells.” 6:10 – On why the Mission Boost Grant is a good fit “This isn’t a great R01 project. It wouldn’t be a great R01 project until you find the mechanism. You can’t really propose to do all this pre-clinical and clinical modeling until you have a good mechanism, but then once that’s where you’re at that’s not really enough to be an R01. And yet to propose a full clinical trial – we’re not there yet either.” 9:20 – On curiosity and taking research to the next step – “(If you) find something interesting as a basic scientist, it’s not like there are people just waiting out there to take your idea to the next step. They have their own projects and their own favorite children to work on. So unless you are really willing to keep going with it, it’s very easy for stuff to just fall off.” 13:20 – Advice she would give to someone applying for a Mission Boost Grant – “What was incredibly helpful to me was having discussions with clinical collaborators, because in my mind I didn’t see the steps between preclinical mouse study and full-blown trial in human patients that would mimic exactly that mouse study.” 15:45 – On how cancer touches everyone and how people can give back – “I know as a researcher I benefit greatly from all the patients who consent to donate tissue…It seems like a small thing…but that’s really what’s going to allow us to move forward.”

Dr. Bryan Sexton has captured the wisdom of frontline caregivers through rigorous assessments of safety culture, teamwork, and workforce resilience. His research instruments have been used around the world in over 3000 hospitals, in 30 countries. His current R01 grant from NIH is a randomized clinical trial of resilience training. With specializations in organizational assessment, teamwork, survey development, and quantitative methods, Bryan spends his time teaching, mentoring, conducting research, and finding practical ways of getting busy caregivers to do the right thing, by making it the easy thing to do.  Bryan has found that results across industries, work settings, shifts, professions, and countries highlight a great deal about reliability in high risk environments – specifically, “you are better off changing the situation, than trying to change human nature.” He starts off by telling us how he got started studying burnout in healthcare workers, (BTW- he does an amazing southern accent), he defines the three types burnout and tools he uses to in his resilience research. Bryan wants people to know that burnout is recoverable. If you work in a healthcare setting or with healthcare workers, I highly recommend you ask your employees to enroll in Dr. Sexton’s WISER study. You can send your employees to bit.ly/3WISER to participate. For links mentioned in today's episode visit https://redesigningwellness.com/ To join the Redesigning Wellness Community, visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/rdwellnesscommunity/

Thanks to the research being done in CKid, we know that children diagnosed with chronic kidney disease progress over time to dialysis and transplantation. That makes it very important to address therapies which can mitigate the progression of chronic kidney disease. Joining the show today is Tarak Srivastava, MD, he has been awarded R01 funding from the National Institutes of Health to work on targeting EP2, one of the four PGE2 receptors to mitigate hyperfiltration–mediated kidney injury as a way to delay the progression of chronic kidney disease in children born with congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT). 

We talk about the first iteration of the B&R and also with Titus Chalk, author of the book Generation Decks.Welcome to the season season of Flippin’ Orbs! In this episode we talk about how the ban & restricted list looked like in it’s first year and then we have an interview with Titus Chalk lined up for you guys. Titus is the author of the book generation decks and has a lot of knowledge about the early days of magic. Enjoy!What we talk about and when:00.02.35 - Random ramblings00.10.37 - Question of the day00.17.30 - The first B&R01.06.35 - Interview with Titus Chalk02.25.40 - End ramblingsYou can find Titus book here.The picture with all the signed cards.End music by Wittmack Ekbom

Die Episode #003-R01 ist gleichzeitig die Episode "Reingehört 01". In der Kategorie "Reingehört" stelle ich ab sofort ausgewählte Podcasts vor. Die Episoden dieser Reihe erhalten Namen von Freunden und Bekannten, die ich insbesondere ansprechen möchte. Heute stelle ich 'für Hanna und Michel' den "Lila Podcast" vor, einen "feministischen" Podcast mit entspannten und dabei interessanten Protagonistinnen. Ein bemerkenswertes Beispiel für einen gelungenen Generationswechsel. Alice Schwarzer war (ist) gestern!

The Penny George Institute for Health and Healing—Allina Health in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has been a champion of integrative medical research since 2007. In this interview, Jeffrey Dusek, PhD, the director of research at Penny George, describes some of the innovative research being done at the institute and also comments on some of the challenges associated with integrative medical research. Approximate listening time: 26 minutes About the Expert Jeffrey A. Dusek, PhD, is the director of research, Penny George Institute for Health and Healing—Allina Health, Minneapolis. From 1998 to 2007, Dusek was a faculty member of Harvard Medical School, where he first served as an instructor in the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and then as the director of behavioral sciences research, Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 2011, Dusek was awarded a prestigious multiyear R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health to study the impact of integrative medicine (eg, mind/body, acupuncture, aromatherapy, massage) on pain management in hospitalized patients. He earned his doctorate in biopsychology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Antonio L. Estrada, MSPH, Ph.D., is Professor and Head of the Department of Mexican American Studies at the University of Arizona. He received his Ph.D. and MS degrees in Public Health with training in Behavioral Sciences/Health Education, Social Epidemiology, and Evaluation Research from the UCLA School of Public Health. His research interests include HIV disease among injection drug users and their sexual partners, prevention with HIV positives, and Hispanic/Latino health disparities. He has been the Principal Investigator on two R01 research grants, a NIH minority supplement, has served as Co-Principal Investigator on three NIH funded grants and has received State and private foundation funding for his research.

Dr. Olugbenga Ogedegbe is an Associate Professor of Medicine and the Director of the Center for Healthful Behavior Change in the NYU School of Medicine's Division of General Internal Medicine. The programmatic focus of Dr. Ogedegbe's research is the translation and dissemination of evidence-based behavioral interventions targeted at cardiovascular risk reduction. His work focuses on translational behavioral medicine, addressing the T2/T3 gaps in translation research. Dr. Ogedegbe has extensive experience in the implementation of clinical trials of behavioral and lifestyle interventions targeted at medication adherence and blood pressure control in primary care practices and community-based settings. He is Principal Investigator on several NHLBI-funded R01 community and practice-based clinical trials, Project Leader on two NCMHHD-funded Health Disparities Center, and Co-Investigator on several NIH-funded trials in diabetes management and sleep disorders. Dr. Ogedegbe has served on several NIH study sections, is a permanent member of the Behavior Medicine Intervention and Outcomes study section and several special emphasis panels at the NHLBI, NCI, and the NCMHHD, as well as a member of the Eighth Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension, and The Institute of Medicine Committee on Living Well with Chronic Disease.

Jennifer Pinto-Martin, PhD, MPH, is an internationally renowned scholar in perinatal epidemiology. Dr. Pinto-Martin began her career as an epidemiologist as the Project Director for the Neonatal Brain Hemorrhage (NBH) Study, a longitudinal study of neonatal brain injury in low birthweight infants, and has had continuous NIH support since 1984. Dr. Pinto-Martin expanded her research focus to the epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorder and is currently the Director and Principal Investigator of the Pennsylvania Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (PA-CADDRE), one of six such centers funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the etiology of ASD. Enrollment in this multi-site study began last year and will ultimately include 2,700 children. Additionally she has received funding for an investigator initiated project (R01) to assess the prevalence of ASD in the NBH cohort, thereby bringing her two major lines of research inquiry together in one project. Another area of research include: the screening and early identification of ASD and the vital role of nurses in pediatric primary care in this process. Dr. Pinto-Martin is funded by NIH-Fogarty as part of a research team with the International clinical Epidemiology Network to study the prevalence of autism and other childhood disabilities India. Screening and diagnostic instruments are being field tested now and the study will ultimately screen children from 45,000 households across India. Dr. Pinto-Martin is now the Director of Penn’s cross-school Masters of Public Health program. She is particularly well known for her rigorous research methods, her interdisciplinary collaboration, and her mentorship of the next generation of scientists. She is the first recipient of this award who is not a nurse and yet has made major contributions to the Science of Nursing.

Jennifer Pinto-Martin, PhD, MPH, is an internationally renowned scholar in perinatal epidemiology. Dr. Pinto-Martin began her career as an epidemiologist as the Project Director for the Neonatal Brain Hemorrhage (NBH) Study, a longitudinal study of neonatal brain injury in low birthweight infants, and has had continuous NIH support since 1984. Dr. Pinto-Martin expanded her research focus to the epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorder and is currently the Director and Principal Investigator of the Pennsylvania Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (PA-CADDRE), one of six such centers funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the etiology of ASD. Enrollment in this multi-site study began last year and will ultimately include 2,700 children. Additionally she has received funding for an investigator initiated project (R01) to assess the prevalence of ASD in the NBH cohort, thereby bringing her two major lines of research inquiry together in one project. Another area of research include: the screening and early identification of ASD and the vital role of nurses in pediatric primary care in this process. Dr. Pinto-Martin is funded by NIH-Fogarty as part of a research team with the International clinical Epidemiology Network to study the prevalence of autism and other childhood disabilities India. Screening and diagnostic instruments are being field tested now and the study will ultimately screen children from 45,000 households across India. Dr. Pinto-Martin is now the Director of Penn’s cross-school Masters of Public Health program. She is particularly well known for her rigorous research methods, her interdisciplinary collaboration, and her mentorship of the next generation of scientists. She is the first recipient of this award who is not a nurse and yet has made major contributions to the Science of Nursing.